You are right in the fact that most constitutions, and probably that of the USA too, comprise some kind of exceptional procedures allowing the government to override the rule of law in the case of an emergency. I think that they're required in order to deal with those cases such as angry people with pitchforks burning down cities etc, something that still happened once in a while in the past century, but I don't expect those procedures to have been applied often nowadays.
And I don't think people have the *right* to lie: having a right to something doesn't mean having the permission to do that thing, it means that there's some law stating explicitly that that something must be given to those who haven't got it.
Anyway, I was wrong in my post above: there appears to be no explicit law against entrapment, if I understand correctly it's just a matter of interpretation by the courts, which has oscillated over the course of years.
That the trade union of nuclear professionals advocates for nuclear power is unsurprising, grant me this consideration.
The wikipedia link that you pointed me to says that China has intentions to bring nuclear power usage to 6% in 2020 up from its current 2% whereas the regulated US were at 19% last year, and the hyper-regulated France was at 75%.
Conclusion: nuclear blossoms in social-democratic countries with a strong central government that invests large amounts of taxpayers' money as subsidies to the industry (or owns it directly).
And thorium reactors are nice, except that they have problems too, the biggest one being of course that they currently do not exist in a profitable form, while nuclear power fundamentalists regularly mention them as the obvious, current solution for every woe of nuclear power.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a nuclear power proponent myself, especially after I've seen the damages done by supposedly green energy sources and their governmental subsidy policies. I just don't like echo chambers.
The high costs of nuclear are driven by non technical issues.
If that were true, we'd be seeing nuclear power plants flowering under authoritarian regimes, whose leaders need not worry about public opinion. Or, we'd see them abund in turbo-capitalist countries, where rich people, or associations thereof, can buy legislation and will do so on every occasion when there's money to be made.
If the effective cost of nuclear power isn't limited to the bill of materials of the power plant and the cost of the finished, ready to employ fuel, it's because of reality, not because of tree-huggers.
Of course, it's also possible that I'm getting old.
No,
No? From the message:
at this point in time I'd advocate against Mozilla, Libreoffice, XFCE or LXDE to switch to GTK 3. They value their independence from GNOME too much.
My comment didn't contain any statement of value about GTK3 or GNOME, so I can't understand the rest of your message about being dickish, lazy, Enlightenment looking bad, me forcing other people to solve my problems, and so on. Perhaps you're talking in general about the attitude you perceive here on slashdot towards GNOME 3, but then if you do that in reply to a message of mine, you make it look like I said any of the stuff you're talking about. Which is not the case.
Which is why at this point in time I'd advocate against Mozilla, Libreoffice, XFCE or LXDE to switch to GTK 3. They value their independence from GNOME too much.
What's the difference between "I advocate against projects that value their independence from GNOME to use GTK 3" and "I don't want you to use GTK 3 outside of GNOME"?
(But then again I wouldn't believe that home routers could be sold with an internet-facing backdoor open by default in their stock firmware, until that happened.)
(cmake is probably the best, since it's more portable than autoconf).
As a user of autoconfed packages, I find autoconf superior to cmake. Packages built with autoconf have standardized mechanisms for uninstallation (a cmake package may generate an install-manifest file, an uninstall target, or none of the two), to specify where to put documentation, for cross-compilation, and to fine-tune the build and the installation. With cmake, I can't even tell the package where to install libraries (most packages will allow you to do it, but each package has a different standard about the way to be told); with autoconf, I can even specify a sed to be run on the name of the installed binaries (useful if different packages provide different implementations of the same binary) and still have the installed package work. Also, with cmake packages building both static and dynamic libraries at the same time is usually impossible.
Moreover, modern autoconf scripts are (relatively) easy to debug and patch when they don't work; cmake scripts are more scattered and they're written in an obscure mainframish language.
That said, I imagine that using autoconf on non-posix systems might be less funny.
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.